Because of the issues inherent in democracy, a lot of dissidents throw out the idea of voting altogether. But a return to a rule by few or rule by one brings about different, but equally problematic issues. I still believe that voting could be a useful endeavor, given certain conditions. But not how it is used under our modern democratic states.
A preferred voting focus is instead on oversight. The oversight voting system is geared more toward giving absolute power to contributors (read: contributory citizens) to oversee the actions of their leaders. This is contrary to a direct focus on electing them to do whatever they want or selecting policies (representative or direct democracy).
True voting power is not in selecting candidates or picking policies. It is in having total centralization over the nation-state in which one lives. We only get real sustainable power when there are enough oversight capabilities that the ruling class constantly feel their feet to the fire if they do not do things in the interests of the contributors. Democracy, especially with a party system, does not do this. Representative democracy leads to rogue leaders pandering to idiots. Direct democracy is simply mob rule by the majority grey masses, which can only end in disaster. Oversight offers a way out while still allowing the contributory public the ability to oversee and negate certain actions.
We have actual voting power only if we can stop, block, recall, challenge, investigate, and amend everything they do. But when we can also leave the politicians alone when they are doing well. Oversight voting can accommodate this.
We care less about voting on any specific individual and more on crafting a quality leader from birth and then having oversight over every single thing that individual does. Consider it a blend of aristocracy but with democratic oversight over them. The only way to have true centralization over the ruling class is to have this kind of focus. Anything else is placebo.
For instance, numerous rule by many republic politicians will lie about what they intend to do after winning office. They will then get elected based on their lie and turn around and do the exact opposite. During their tenure, they will enrich themselves and make strong networking connections while abandoning their constituency. They will then leave the office after their “service” years and go work for one of the networking contacts they made. There are no reliable tools to resist against this kind of behavior in a rule by many. There is zero oversight until the next election. Once elected, they are largely free to do whatever they desire until the next election. True power through voting is not acquired by selecting candidates or picking policies. It is in having total oversight over the ruling class. If we have the latter, then candidate selection is no longer a primary concern and picking policies becomes an afterthought compared to the real power held. The politician himself matters little. What actually matters is how the contributors can deal with this politician’s actions in an effective and timely manner. Thus, our voting focus is on oversight and agreement, not necessarily selection or decision-making.
There is a good litmus test that can be used to discover the sustainability of a political system that I want to share at this point. First, pick a framework. Then, consider what would happen to that framework if your worst enemies, the most frightening leaders you could imagine, got in charge of the political arena and were able to hold it for a decade. I don’t think I need to explain what would happen here in terms of the rule by one or rule by few. The negatives are rather obvious and extreme. Think Nero, Caligula, Pol Pot, or the like. But what about the rule by many? Well, it too would be less than pleasant. Imagine if the people in charge of implementing your policies in a direct democracy became managerial Stalinists, or the representatives in your republic were all ardently in favor of forced population reduction. During that decade, those politicians could absolutely destroy you, contribute to an irreparable centralization of the other three arenas, and even block off a chance from rectifying this situation in the future. But now, ask the same question with the oversight voting as your selection. Even if our politicians become staffed with the worst possible options given the requirements of our framework, they are still handicapped by massive contributor oversight. We can override and negate their policies. Their unaccountable power is less because our oversight power is more. Anything they do can be repealed or overridden and every politician can be directly targeted for investigations and recalls. While the situation is still less than ideal, using our litmus test, the oversight voting approach is the clear victor between the four.
Given the opposite situation of the best leaders, then the rule by one, rule by few, and oversight would perform similarly. Direct democracy and the representative form would only perform as well as the grey masses allow them. They have a cap at the average voter, whereas the others are only capped by the potential of the leaders.
This test is important for the legacy frameworks because, given our cycle of collapse theory, eventually all of those frameworks will have the worst leaders ruling them for a long duration of time. The nightmare situation you imagined will become a reality in any framework. It’s an inevitability given the cycle. But it is not inevitable to have the worst-case with oversight. Even if it were to occur, we’re still better set because we focus on oversight, instead of people or policy. If we start with a solid base, we can remain solid by constantly rolling back to the base.
Things like overriding laws, investigating politicians, and similar override tools I’ve discussed previously create the proper environment for an oversight voting system. Oversight is always more powerful than representation or direct in terms of cancellations of bad actions by leaders.
Representative voting is akin to voting in the hope that someone will come to save you from your own problems wrought by the grey masses. Direct democratic voting is continual voting to control and restrain the ever-growing mob. Oversight voting is voting to fully control those with power so that they do what is in the interests of the contributory.
If we use oversight voting and pair it with making sure that those with power are vetted and trained for merit, strength, virtue, and wisdom, then we can create an excellent balance through the entire political arena.
The oversight approach is similar to the anarchic villages and the tribal communities of old, where leaders had power so long as they used it to do good for the community. Otherwise, the community had the ultimate oversight and veto power through communitarian rejection or expulsion. We seek to emulate this on a larger scale.
Based on my research thus far, the oversight approach is the only possible approach when considering sustainable democratic voting systems. No other form is long-term stable, because no other focuses more on the restriction of power and returning to the traditional societal position. It’s the roll-back option for when the excess of the political leaders go too far.
Clearly nothing else is working, so we have to turn our attention to developing something new. If nothing else, it is worthy of further inquiry.
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!